Access to Justice

RELEASE: Court Grapples Once Again with Federal Arbitration Act’s Exemption for Transportation Workers

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, a case in which the Court is considering whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) exempts workers who are actively engaged in interstate transportation but are not employed by a company in the transportation “industry,” Constitutional Accountability Center Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen issued the following reaction:

For the second time in two years, the Supreme Court finds itself tasked with settling a dispute about the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act’s exemption for transportation workers, which exempts from the Act’s coverage “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” This time the issue before the Court is whether the exemption extends to transportation workers who are not employed in the transportation “industry,” like the truck drivers who work for a commercial bakery in this case.

If the Court follows the text and history of the FAA, this case should be an easy one. As we explained in our amicus brief filed in support of the truck drivers, there is no hidden “industry” requirement in the text of the FAA exemption. And if the Court follows the ejusdem generis canon that was discussed at oral argument this morning—searching for a commonality between “seamen” and “railroad employees” to understand who qualifies as a transportation worker—it will see that the term “seamen” in 1925 covered individuals employed by lumber companies, coal companies, and other companies outside the transportation industry, as counsel for the truck drivers repeatedly emphasized today.

The FAA exemption’s plain text mandates that all transportation workers, regardless of who employs them, should get their day in court when they allege that their rights have been violated by their employer. We urge the Supreme Court to follow that plain text.

##

Resources:

Case page in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/bissonnette-v-lepage-bakeries-park-st-llc/

##

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
June 23, 2026

CAC Release: In Deeply Disappointing Decision, Supreme Court Ignores Ordinary Meaning of Statute and Denies Victims of Torture Their Day in Court

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Cisco Systems v. Doe,...
By: Harith Khawaja
Access to Justice
June 23, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court’s Conservative Supermajority Undermines Important Right Created by Congress

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Landor v. Louisiana Department...
By: Brianne J. Gorod
Access to Justice
June 18, 2026

CAC Release: Court Further Muddies the Waters on the Scope of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine in Majority Opinion that Ignores Critical Reconstruction-Era History Regarding the Role of Federal Courts as the Chief Guardians of Federal Rights

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in T.M. v. University of...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Access to Justice
June 3, 2026

How to Get Neil Gorsuch to Stand Up For Workers

Slate
CAC Legal Fellow Harith Khawaja wrote an article for Slate magazine explaining how CAC's text...
By: Harith Khawaja
Access to Justice
May 28, 2026

CAC Release: A Victory for Text, History, and Delivery Workers in Flowers Foods v. Brock

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Flowers Foods v. Brock,...
Access to Justice
April 28, 2026

CAC Release: In Cisco v. Doe Argument, Justices Grapple with the Scope of Liability Under Two Critical Human Rights Statutes

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Cisco Systems...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Harith Khawaja